Both videos were shot after the batons had stopped (allegedly) swinging. [The videos won't embed so you'll have to click through to view them.] In the first, Silva is surrounded by several members of law enforcement who are obviously still restraining him. You can hear faint orders to "get down" being yelled by the officers, but the most noticeable sounds come from Silva himself, who spends most of the runtime screaming.

The second video shows the efforts of law enforcement and the responding EMS unit to revive Silva. One of the offscreen voices makes a couple of interesting statements. First, he points out that officers "stood around for five minutes" by Silva's unmoving body before attempting resuscitation. The second, echoed by a female voice, lends some credence to the story put forth by several witnesses: "Now, it's a murder scene."

Also of note, at 5:19 a second cell phone, presumably recording, shows up in frame. This would appear to be the other cell phone that was seized by the Sheriff's Department, the one on which the footage is no longer available.

The witnesses claim that both phones had footage of officers striking and kicking Silva, but with both phones now returned to their owners, none of the footage has survived. Both phones made their way from the deputies who seized the phones to the Kern County Sheriff's Office, which then shared the phones with the Bakersfield PD and the FBI. The FBI has apparently analyzed both phones but has yet to release its findings.

Rodriguez told ABC23 that "the more incriminating video was one on the other cellphone." He said that video was shot "while the batons were swinging." Rodriguez added the second phone was returned to his client with no video. If a video was erased from that phone, he said, it could not be recovered because of the type of the device.

[Cohn] said his clients are concerned that the videos might be erased or destroyed, either accidentally or on purpose. He has not seen them.

"If I'd heard that they'd given them to the FBI, ok," he told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "But the Bakersfield Police Department, whom they work with on a daily basis? It certainly doesn't have the look of impartiality."

Cohn also (obviously) has his concerns about the phone seizures themselves.

Cohn said the Sheriff's Department went "well beyond a reasonable search" in obtaining the videos, making no effort to ask for copies or voluntary cooperation from the witnesses.

"They held these people hostage for several hours pending the serving of a search warrant. I've never heard of that before," he said.

Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication….

This law provides that if a person takes a video of police action and intends to disseminate it to the public, the police can only obtain the video by subpoena, not by a search warrant. In this case neither of the individuals who had their property seized were suspects in the crime being investigated, the death of David Silva at the hands of Kern County Sheriff’s deputies, nor were they being arrested.

The sheriff’s office was aware of the video because the individual that taped the beating called 911.

Further, that individual informed the 911 personnel that she intended to disseminate the video to the public (at 0:46 of the call), saying “I’m sending it to the news.” At this point, the Sheriff’s office was on notice that this was “work product” protected by the Privacy Protection Act, and should have been obtained by subpoena, not by a search warrant. Indeed, the law specifically provides that a warrant can only be used after a subpoena has failed to obtain the material.

The video supposedly containing the most damning footage is missing. What we do have available only shows the aftermath of the beating. We're still waiting for much more information to be released. There's been no word back from the FBI on its analysis of the phones. The coroner has yet to release an official cause of death and the sheriff's office has stated this process could take up to four months. Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood continues to make concerned noises, but the lack of conclusive video has also prompted a bit more hedging, along with some unfortunate statements.

"I have seen the video," Youngblood said last week. "I cannot speculate whether they acted appropriately or not just by looking at the video."

The sheriff, however, acknowledged that there is a great deal of public concern about the incident and subsequent investigation. "It is not just troubling to the public, it is not just troubling to news media, it is troubling to me," he said. In an interview with The Times, he said the credibility of the department is at stake.

"Baton strikes were used, but what I don't know is how many and where they were on the body and if they caused significant injury that caused death," he said.

Youngblood said the baton is a less lethal weapon, and because of that its use doesn’t usually lead to deputies being placed on leave. But he said the head is not an appropriate place for a baton strike.

"Sometimes in the heat of battle, the baton doesn't go where you want it to go.... If someone has 20 baton strikes to the head, OK, that is easy for us. But when there is a fight or scuffle and a baton strike goes where it should not ... then you have to evaluate,” he said.

The passive voice in this context is bordering on reprehensible. There's a person controlling the baton and that person presumably should have the training to ensure proper "placement" of the weapon. The two deputies seen on the surveillance tape seem to be controlling their batons very well, using both hands to swing and connect with Silva. Nine officers swinging batons at one man are going to run out of "appropriate" real estate on a human body very quickly.

Youngblood seems to be drawing a line between proper baton use and a savage beating, but he's drawing the line in his office's favor. If all officers aimed exclusively and repeatedly for Silva's head, it's an open-and-shut case. But, if Silva struggled, or if blows rained down on other parts of his body as well, it's probably just good (if a bit too aggressive) police work (pending "evaluation").

Youngblood's statement serves two purposes: to define how far officers under his control actually have to go in terms of violence in order to warrant further review or disciplinary action, and to justify the fact that his deputies are still on active duty, despite earlier reporting that they had been placed on paid administrative leave until the investigation was complete.

It is common to place law enforcement officers on paid leave during investigations of arrest-related deaths, but the Californian reported the deputies involved remain on duty.

Youngblood's deputies who allegedly beat a man to death are still on patrol. One hopes that they won't find themselves in any situations in which a baton strike might be used, or go where the deputies "don't want it to go."

this is so goddamned disgusting, who the hell is there to oversee authority? If they're unable to govern themselves, they should not be allowed any measure of authority over anyone.
Having the footage deleted on the cellphone? Everyone involved should be punished. As in, NOT BEING PAID to be punished would be a start.

Solution

Some of the following may help ensure that murders do not get a badge:

1) All financial records of officers must be made available
2) Officers must attended therapy sessions and be removed from duty if they are mentally unfit
3) All police activity must be video and audio recorded (any missing data would result in the immediate dismissal of anyone remotely involved, including superiors)
4) Weekly drug tests of every officer
5) Monitoring of all officers email, texting and phone calls

I am sure there are additional solutions, but these should be implemented as a start.

If you are a good and qualified officer with nothing to hide, then you should have no problem with this.

Re:

Indeed, if you live in the area where these police work how can you trust ANYONE they'd send when you call 911, when ANY of them could be a savage murder?

Murderers who kill their victim that violently with a blunt object repeatedly being banged against them tend to be considered ESPECIALLY dangerous and blood thirsty, because it's a lot harder kill someone that way then with a gun.

Yeah, just received a notice on my door stating that all the phones in the neighborhood are being confiscated. The problem is that a few stray photons from that night bounced around and were tracked out to our area and landed somewhere in the general vicinity. Because of that, those photons could have landed on a camera phone lens. Everyone has to cough up all phones, cameras, webcams, recording devices, laptops, netbooks, storage devices, and whatever else that could potentially have recorded one or two photons. Bummer.

Re: Return to active duty

But the seven deputies involved have not been placed on paid administrative leave.

Officials of the department wouldn't explain why.

"We're following the same protocol, as far as the administrative process is concerned, that we'd follow in similar-type incidents," was all that sheriff's spokesman Ray Pruitt would say about the issue.

Then we have conflicting reports the next day. One outlet repeated the earlier info on Tuesday, while Fox News Latino reported on that day that the Sheriff's office wouldn't confirm the deputies' work status.

The day after that is the Wednesday, the 15th, and I haven't seen anything new since then.

Nine trained police officers work as a team to murder someone in cold blood and keep their jobs, and Aaron Swartz was charged with 13 felonies for making knowledge more accessible. I think I'll start saving to gtfo of here.

Watch and adapt

When recording the police in the future, if they try to steal your phone for "evidence collecting," the right thing to do is to run away and upload the video. That's what I'm getting from all of these stories. Handing your phone over willingly is giving up liberty (yours and others') and supporting the police state.

Re: Solution

Well 1, 3 and 5 would be invalid when even Police Officers have Fourth Amendment rights meaning their privacy cannot be violated by the Government until there are facts to indicate that they may have been involved in a crime.

Number 2 does not seem too useful when Police Officers can lie but sure if their sanity is questioned then they can be sent off to be evaluated.

Number 4 seems a fair request and part of the job agreement but weekly seems a bit too intrusive where random checks can work better.

This whole case though is about cops not following established procedure rules, and even in breaking the law, where they will indeed be judged and fairly punished for what they have done.

I would hope to see in this case that the system works with no changes needed beyond reminding Police Officers to actually follow the law and standard procedures.

As I've said, police aren't even thugs now, just attack dogs.

I'm concerned about the emphasis given video these days: it's as though eye-witness testimony is being edged out entirely.

By the way, kids, over-reaction is good reason to NOT throw water balloons at police: yeah, it's minor in absolute terms but police will go wild in practice, and technically in that case be in the right.

Oh, and take this egregious tenuously related dig: I bet EVERY ONE of those savages played violent video games until they could do it in real life. How could violent games possibly lead to any other behavior than savagery?

If I was blocked from leaving my house until I handed them my phone or until they could obtain a search warrant, I would use the time to copy all the data off of it and store in in multiple locations on the Internet and on various physical backup media like USB sticks, DVD-R or other external hard drives.

Re:

Re:

I would've done the same thing. At LEAST uploaded it to my dropbox on the sly. But we don't know what kind of situation the hostages were in. They could've had a police watching them for cell phone usage or anything.

This shouldn't surprise anyone though. The entire system is corrupt from the President down to the lowliest form of authority. It's only gonna get worse.

"In the context of place branding, which is what we call it, if you're in the middle of ... this chaotic moment here with the police and the brutality charges and making national news, that certainly is going to have an impact on your brand," he said.

"The trust factor is key for any brand. I mean, without that, you're in a quick decline," Daye said. He added that the full impact on Kern's brand won't be immediately evident, and that the most important perceptions will be formed based on how the sheriff's department handles the case going forward.

I think it's worthwhile to compare those worries against what happened in Spokane, Washington in the Otto Zehm case. And to compare the tone and slant of that article in the Bakersfield Californian against the Spokane Spokesman-Review's coverage of Zehm's beating and brutal death.

Consider the Spokesman-Review. Since Zehm’s death in March 2006, the Spokane newspaper has published more than 280 stories, posted or linked to over 70 documents, and filed more than 135 blogs posts. This year alone, more than six years after Zehm’s death, the Spokane daily has published more than 30 articles. . . .

“I can assure you that not one reader, online commenter or letter writer has suggested to me that it is time to drop the story,” Gary Graham, executive editor of the Spokesman, said in an email last month. “There’s more to come, and I think readers understand that now.” . . .

“I firmly believe that if the Spokesman-Review had not continued pressing, this would have disappeared with nary a ripple,” Addy Hatch, the paper’s city editor, said in an email. “Now, it’s been one of the catalysts to driving real reform in the police department and contributed to a mayor’s ouster.”

I have to agree with Hatch, without the Spokesman-Review, the police coverup of Zehm's death probably would have succeeded.

That count of 280 stories has, of course, since been surpassed. The Spokesman-Review kept up its coverage through last November's sentencing for former-officer Karl Thompson and through this months' May 7th sentencing of former officer Tim Moses.

I have some personal ties to Spokane, so my impressions of that city are colored a bit. But I have to tell you, after following the Otto Zehm story, I do have one more lasting impression of Spokane:

i doubt very much whether it would take 9 officers to subdue The Hulk, green colour and all. there can be no excuse at all for 9 people let alone them being police officers to beat 1 person. surely to God it doesn't take a mensa member to work out that a man died! he was alive (maybe drunk, but still alive!) before the officers started beating him, but now he is dead! there can be no other conclusion here just as there would be no other conclusion if it had been 9 people beating 1 police officer! i think the other thing to bear in mind is just how far will these officers go next time they get into a similar situation? start firing and shoot a person for being drunk and maybe add a few more innocent bystanders as well? these crossed the line. they probably will do again if they get away with this and i wouldn't be surprised if they did. it shows just how degraded the USA has got and how peoples lives are now considered almost worthless. nothing is more important than everyone doing exactly what they are told, do questions, no rights, no freedom, no privacy! and may the Lord have mercy on us!!

Re: As I've said, police aren't even thugs now, just attack dogs.

Oh, and take this egregious tenuously related dig: I bet EVERY ONE of those savages played violent video games until they could do it in real life. How could violent games possibly lead to any other behavior than savagery?

Once again Blue ignores any evidence contrary to his predetermined beliefs.

Re: As I've said, police aren't even thugs now, just attack dogs.

it's as though eye-witness testimony is being edged out entirely.

Eye-witness testimony is notoriously sketchy. The camera, when it captures the whole truth and isn't tampered with, is a lot better than human memories, which can forget, rationalize, etc, and people have been convicted of a crime based on witness testimony when other technologies (i.e. DNA, video tape, etc.) have ultimately overturned those convictions. The problem is that cameras are still really crappy and don't capture everything, and they tend to be directional and may not capture stuff happening on the periphery.

However, it is not being edged out entirely. In most cases, video-tape and other technology enhances what the eye-witnesses saw, giving juries a better idea about what really happened.

Re: Re: Re: Return to active duty

The May 20th [KERO 23 ABC] linked article has the same line

Not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. I think that May 20th KERO 23ABC News bit is just sourced from the May 13th Californian article. I can't find anything more recent in the Californian—but it could just be that my google-fu's a little off.

'Course the best way to get an answer might be to call KCSO and ask them.

Re: Re: As I've said, police aren't even thugs now, just attack dogs.

"I'm concerned about the emphasis given video these days: it's as though eye-witness testimony is being edged out entirely."

No, I think what he's saying is that the eye witness accounts against the police officers here should be taken more seriously. Instead, everyone is only upset about the videos being (allegedly) destroyed.

In which case I think blue is missing the point. No one is dismissing the eye witness testimonies against the cops. We are simply outraged that the cops (were even allowed) to take evidence potentially incriminating them and destroy it. The alleged evidence should have never been allowed to enter into the hands of the cops, the very suspects here.

Re:

Not to mention cops are quick to record us whenever it proves their innocence but the moment someone dies at their hands the cops are unable to produce footage. All of these nine officers managed to get together and somehow they forgot to bring or turn on the camera to record the event of someone dying at their hands. That is unacceptable. Without such footage absolving them of guilt they should be presumed guilty. They should have been responsible, before the confrontation even occurred, of having cameras on hand recording the whole thing. Heck, in Russia many cars have dash cams as a default. You mean to tell me, with all the money we spend on law enforcement and red light cameras and weapons that we provide the cops and retirement and everything, we couldn't manage to have a few cameras during this whole ordeal absolving them of guilt? No, this person died in a confrontation with cops and the cops failed to do what was necessary to prove their innocence (have the whole thing recorded) and there is no good reason for them not to have. They should be presumed guilty.

3 cheers for dead pigs

Re: Re: As I've said, police aren't even thugs now, just attack dogs.

Oh, and take this egregious tenuously related dig: I bet EVERY ONE of those savages played violent video games until they could do it in real life. How could violent games possibly lead to any other behavior than savagery?

Once again Blue ignores any evidence contrary to his predetermined beliefs.

Even knowing OOB's history, I took that part of his comment as sarcasm, as in taking a dig at the people (including many cops) who claim that violent video games make people do violent crimes. Basically saying that since the police apparently beat this guy to death they must have been playing violent video games to cause them to do such a horrible thing.

Sadly I wouldn't be surprised to see them try that as an excuse if this ever goes to trial.

Re: Re: Solution

"Well 1, 3 and 5 would be invalid when even Police Officers have Fourth Amendment rights meaning their privacy cannot be violated by the Government until there are facts to indicate that they may have been involved in a crime."

Not really. On point #3, police in many states are already required to carry in-dash cameras. On point #1, senators and judges are required by law to disclose their financial records each year, and on point #5 certain elected officials are required to keep copies of all non-personal communications as part of the public record. It's not much of a stretch to require police officers to do the same.

Re:

As I have said before I would have called a lawyer even if it had been nearly 3am. The only defence against overpowering authority is someone intelligent and wise on the ways of the law. Then yes to fight them in Court to make the Judge fully aware of the situation and not their one sided story.

Here today it is clarified that the law says the Police cannot use a warrant to seize a by-standers property if a news story is to be reported. Only a Subpoena can be used and that of course gives people time to do their thing.

It is also true that detaining someone in their home for hours is not on the good side of the law. Police Officers are not even allowed in your house without a warrant unless you invite them in.

So all a case of not knowing the law, not taking up their lawful rights, then allowing the Police to bully them and to abuse the law in order to delete critical evidence against them. To win there is only one choice... to be an even bigger bully and annoyance.

An autopsy was performed on Silva Friday [May 10], but the coroner said his cause of death was pending toxicology results. Youngblood said that could take three to four months and the investigation won't be complete until then.

In three to four months, how many people will still be interested? In three to four months is all this just going to be ancient news—some drunk guy who got dead?

Re: Re: Re:

Cops need to know that the confiscation of evidence like this is not tolerable. If these cops do not face serious convictions then we have made it clear to them that confiscating and destroying evidence when guilty can help them get away with their crimes.

Re: 3 cheers for dead pigs

Re: Re: Solution

1 is a stipulation included in every government job that requires a security clearance.

3 is in absolutely no way a 4th amendment search. Recording your employees while they are at work is not only perfectly legal it's pretty routine for many jobs.

5 Is already in place for work e-mail, texting on a work phone, and phone calls from phones at work. It's unclear from the list if it was meant to include monitoring of personal e-mail/texts/phone calls. That I would agree is too far although I don't think it's a 4th amendment issue either.

Re: Re: Re: Solution

The dashboard camera of a California Highway Patrol cruiser recorded officers and deputies coming and going from a fatal confrontation last week in East Bakersfield, but it did not capture any blows, officials said.

This is not the first conflict with law enforcement for four out of the six eyewitnesses.

Maria Melendez has a criminal history dating back to 1988. That includes four drug convictions, two DUI convictions, and a hit-and-run conviction.

Melissa Quair has seven separate cases dating back to 2002 including convictions for welfare fraud, cashing bad checks, three counts of driving without a license, and two counts of driving on a suspended licensed.

Sulina Quair's criminal history dates back to 1997 and includes convictions for welfare fraud, burglary, two counts of driving without a license, two counts of driving on a suspended license, and DUI.

Francisco Arrieta's criminal record dates back to 2001 and includes a weapons conviction, DUI, three counts of driving on a suspended license, and hit and run.

In those cases the witnesses had a conflict of interest, they were a witness to their own activities which doesn't count. If the witnesses here have no close ties to anyone involved then that makes their testimony much more credible.

Re: Re: As I've said, police aren't even thugs now, just attack dogs.

"Eye-witness testimony is notoriously sketchy. "

I agree. Blue is missing the point. No one is ignoring eye witnesses completely but camera evidence would be nice. For that potential (and likely) evidence to be put into the hands of the very suspects of the crime (the police) before having a chance to escape and then for those suspects to show nothing (they failed to produce any footage from that confiscated evidence absolving them of guilt and they failed to provide us with their own footage) is outrageous and, to me, should presume guilt. As a rule we, as a society, should not make it advantageous for cops to wrongfully confiscate and destroy evidence and if these cops are not convicted here then we have made such a thing a rule. Future cops need to know that when they are suspect they can not confiscate evidence like this without first being able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, their innocence (which they have failed) or else they will be presumed guilty. This is unacceptable. What happened here, in all likelihood, is that footage was taken and deleted and anything after coming from law enforcement and various investigations is a circus designed to coverup the truth. I'm not buying it. I want murder convictions just for the cameras being confiscated the way they were. That should have never happened. and whoever confiscated those cameras need to be punished, severely.

In fact, going against the cops is more dangerous than siding with them. They have more to lose going against these violent cops if they did act unjustly because then they may attempt to retaliate. The witness's testimony against the cops benefits them little if they are telling the truth.

See, you're missing the point. The authorities should be held accountable for the cameras being wrongfully taken regardless of whether or not the cops are really guilty of the murder. They wrongfully took that footage and they should pay just for that, separately.

They should be convicted of murder, yes, but that's a separate issue. They should separately be punished for the wrongful confiscation of (potential) evidence.

and if the cops really needed the video evidence for whatever reason they should have brought their own cameras and provided their own video evidence. That they failed is no one elses fault but their own. In fact, under these circumstances, it should have been their own responsibility to prove their innocence with their own cameras. They didn't meet that responsibility. They should be punished.

They should separately pay for taking those cameras. The person whom the cameras was wrongfully taken from should be rewarded well. Do you know why? It will encourage more people to record the cops because, if they record the cops and the cameras are wrongfully taken, those making the recordings get rewarded. That is a good rule. Otherwise people will be discouraged from recording the cops knowing that they can get their cameras forcefully taken from them and not be compensated and accomplish nothing when the evidence is deleted. That's not a rule we want. The fact that these people had their cameras taken from them and should get compensation is independent on whether or not the cops are guilty of murder. Yes, the cops should be convicted of murder. But, separately, these people should be well compensated for having their cameras taken.

If you shoot video of cops breaking the law and/or abusing someone, make disseminating the video(s) your top priority! Upload them! Email them to someone, even yourself! Hide the memory card! Don't just sit around waiting for the cops to show up and confiscate the phone/camera/card!

Re: Re: As I've said, police aren't even thugs now, just attack dogs.

"Eye-witness testimony is notoriously sketchy."

and this is why the cops should have had their own cameras recording the whole thing. Nine cops and no cop cameras. Incredible. Why didn't the cops bring their own cameras? Very suspect, very disturbing.

Re: As I've said, police aren't even thugs now, just attack dogs.

Video is more important than eye witness because witnesses can be discredited for various reasons. Video is the actual event as it happened, not the event after being filtered through a person's imperfect memory.

Regarding violent video games causing savagery, just shut the hell up. You're clearly speaking of something which you have no experience with and as such are incapable to comment on it's (v. video games) effect on behavior.

at least the videos exist still

I can (sort of) see what Youngblood is saying. Essentially, it means that if you aim at an area where you are supposed to hit, and miss, then it's different to if you were always trying to hit an area you shouldn't. It's not really relevant here though, from what I can tell. ( here, the allegation is that they were deliberately aiming at the head) Nor is it a reason to let someone off completely- train them to aim better perhaps.

That's the video Sheriff Youngblood is talking about when he told the Los Angeles Times, "Baton strikes were used, but what I don't know is how many and where they were on the body and if they caused significant injury that caused death."

You look at that video and then say which officer hit what exactly where.

Re: Re: Re:

It is certainly a delay tactic, the police have the preliminary coroner's report pending the toxicology report. Regardless of what the guy was on, toxicology isn't the portion determining the extent of the physical trauma which infers how badly he was beaten. It shouldn't get those guys off the hook for manslaughter if the report says the victim died of unrelated cyanide poisoning if it also states that he had a brain hemorrhage, ruptured internal organs, and internal bleeding such that each of the other conditions would have caused death moments later as well.

With three to four months there's a good chance a FOIA might get the prelimary out, and is using that in it's investigation if they are trying at all. I suggest using the FBI's results of recoving the videos as the measure of how hard they are trying, because if the phones were returned to the individuals working, the FBI most certainly can recover the videos.

Re:

It can mean the difference between murder and manslaughter, or between murder and aggravated murder, but in any case the direct actions of LEOs appears to have caused the death of a citizen.

With pepper spray and tasers readily available, I see this as a complete and utter failure to use the appropriate response to a noncompliant subject. Hell, with 9 of them, they could have just dog-piled onto the guy and subdued him with their sheer weight while someone got cuffs on him. Close enough to strike with a blunt object is close enough to use multiple other tactics to subdue, especially when fully equipped officers are dealing with an unarmed person.

Re: Solution

A better solution in my humble opinion would be a civilian oversight board. Remove the blue line entirely, and have Internal Affairs report to this oversight board. Remove the Police entirely from the chain of command, and when events such as the "lost" video footage occur treat it like what it is: "Intentional tampering with evidence".

This is actually quite common. Not very many agencies have car mounted cameras, and even fewer have officer mounted cameras. Cameras are expensive (though not really that bad,) and money has to get spread around to higher priorities. Many cops buy still cameras for investigations, but they don't carry them on them all the time. With camera cell-phones, this is often the best camera they have with them, capable of capturing video and still shots, and they aren't likely going to be using them when they interact with the public.

That is a little less suspect than phones of private citizens being taken and when returned, the video missing. That is extremely suspect, and is unacceptable. Evidence of a crime needs to be properly documented so that the chain-of-evidence is preserved. The people directly involved in the use of force that resulted in a death should not have had anything to do with the collection of the evidence, and the police should have asked for copies of the evidence, not confiscating the phone where the evidence could be destroyed by someone who is unfamiliar with the phone over a 3rd party who knows how to use the phone and doesn't have a vested interest in making the evidence disappear. There are way too many opportunities for corruption here, and the only way to fix it would have been following the rules (which assure integrity of the evidence over convenience.) They should have subpoenaed the evidence, not asked a judge for a search warrant. If they were concerned about tampering the evidence, then they could have sat with the person and assured that the video was recorded to CD properly.

Sheriff Says No Baton Strikes To Head

Youngblood also said that the report showed that Silva had not received any blows to the head or neck.

I've also had a chance now to watch the video of the press conference once (via KERO 23ABC News), and although I was not taking notes, I believe I heard Sheriff Youngblood say that there were no baton blows to Silva's head. In answer to a question from the media, he stated that the bruising on Silva's face was consistent with a fall.

A pathologist determined a bruise on Silva’s face was a result of him falling and not the result of a baton strike, [Sheriff Donny] Youngblood said. The pathologist who performed the autopsy is, as with all pathologists used by the coroner’s office, an independent contractor and not a Sheriff’s Office employee, sheriff’s spokesman Ray Pruitt said.

"This case personifies exactly why a citizens review board is not a good idea because I as a sheriff deal with facts, law and policy," Youngblood said. "We don't deal with emotion, but the public does."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution

Earlier, KERO 23ABC had reported that Kern County would be releasing the CHP dash cam video, but their story has now been updated. The new story says the Sheriff's Department will not be releasing the CHP dash cam video.

According to the witnesses' original attorney, John Tello, the witnesses permitted a police technician to attempt to copy the videos from the cellphone to a tablet computer. This unsuccessful attempt at copying occurred before the phones were seized.

The news report is unclear as to whether Mr Tello actually witnessed this attempt at copying, or whether he was relating something he had been told.

The owners of the cellphones had left for home, but were called back to the apartment.

Both witnesses agreed to return at the request of sheriff's investigators. But once they arrived they declined to turn over their cellphones, absent a search warrant.

John Tello, a criminal law attorney representing [—when this story was published: May 11—] the two witnesses who shot video footage and other witnesses to the incident, said the witnesses were not allowed to leave with their phones.

The witnesses allowed a police technician to try to download the videos onto a tablet computer, but the effort was unsuccessful, Tello said.

(Emphasis added.)

We don't know whether the police technician can corroborate the existence of videos on both cellphones. The fact that this first copying attempt was unsuccessful does not indicate either way whether or not videos existed on both cellphones, because we believe we have already seen video that was later obtained from one of the two cellphones.

Anyhow, though, it does appear that the police did indeed ask for copies while the cellphones were still in the possession of their owners.

Re: Re:

They could've had a police watching them for cell phone usage or anything.

The witnesses' current attorney, Daniel Rodriguez, states that even before deputies arrived at the home where the witnesses were held, the Sheriff's deputies ordered the witnesses not to post the videos online.

When sheriff’s investigators reached Arrieta and Maria Melendez via phone in the early hours of May 8, their first questions to the witnesses were related to whether they had already published any video of the Silva incident, Rodriguez said.

The conversation went like this, he said:

“Have you posted the video on YouTube? Facebook?” Rodriguez said. “No? Good. You’re not to post the video on YouTube or Facebook.”

Later on, in those morning hours, the witnesses' original attorney, John Tello, says he himself saw the conditions that the deputies held the witnesses in.

Kern County District Attorney Lisa Green said her office will do an independent review of the Sheriff's Office case. . . . .

Green said for now she is asking for the public's patience.

"Hopefully they have faith in the integrity of this office," said Green. "We are not a rubber stamp of any police department or sheriff department in Kern County and we will do our best to provide a truthful and accurate answer."

"With some of the things we have in place, we think we're doing a pretty good job," said Bakersfield Police Chief Greg Williamson.

He added that the public can always turn to other avenues for help if not satisfied with the way a complaint is handled. "They can go to the Grand Jury, which has subpoena power, they can go to the District Attorney's Office which has subpoena power or the Department of Justice," said Williamson.

Interesting that he mentioned the Grand Jury. We don't usually hear too much about the Grand Jury, 'cept in the context of ham sandwiches.

If anyone doubts we live in a police state, this as well as many other past and present stories attest to this. If we read of this happening in Russia we would nod our heads thinking this is the norm. Here it is certainly the norm in many police municipalities. Wake up Amerika!!